Owen Thompson: The Institute of Welsh Affairs says that budgetary pressures highlight the impotence of Welsh devolution and that tax scheme changes by the Scottish Government are a model that would help Wales’s financial situation. If the UK Government will not provide vital increases to devolved budgets, will the Secretary of State explore devolving similar tax-bearing  powers to Wales, as in Scotland, to help the Welsh Government mitigate the Tory mismanagement from this place?

David Davies: I am not quite sure I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because of course the Welsh Government do actually have tax-bearing powers. They have chosen not to use them, because the Welsh Government recognise that taxes have already increased as far as is sensible, and that means that all of us have to deal with the constraints that have come about as a result of the very difficult economic situation we face due to covid and the impact of a land war in Ukraine.

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Government have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories. As Members have been right to say, this is key in anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in the UK, safeguarding jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050. On 1 July 2021, Envision AESC announced investment in its gigafactory in Sunderland. On 18 July last year, Johnson Matthey confirmed investment in the construction of a factory for PEM—proton exchange membrane—fuel cell components for use in hydrogen vehicles to be located at its existing site in Royston, Hertfordshire. We have to keep on going with that and, as she says, build that investment and make sure we have the policies in place to bring that investment here.

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
David Johnston, supported by Peter Aldous, Hilary Benn, Sir Graham Brady, Alan Brown, Simon Fell, Wera Hobhouse, Ben Lake, Clive Lewis, Selaine Saxby, Mick Whitley and Sir Jeremy Wright, presented a Bill to enable electricity generators to become local electricity suppliers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 231).

Alex Davies-Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require providers of in vitro fertilisation to publish information annually about the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles they carry out and about their provision of certain additional treatments in connection with in vitro fertilisation; to require such providers to publish a report about their provision of NHS-funded IVF treatment in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
It is an honour to speak on this Bill about a subject that colleagues will know is very close to my heart. I thank the Bill’s sponsors, many of whom are here today, for their support. Indeed, I am extremely grateful to have support from colleagues across the House who have recognised that there are currently gaps in IVF policy more widely.
Ask anyone who has experience of IVF, whether personally or from watching loved ones go through the process, and they will tell you that IVF is one of the most emotionally and mentally challenging processes that someone can ever undertake. My own IVF journey began in 2018, and I have been very open about the fact that I knew from the start that my road to pregnancy would be difficult. While I am certainly one of the very lucky ones—after only one round of IVF, I was blessed with my beautiful son Sullivan—I still had many eye-opening experiences during my fertility journey that have led me to this point today.
Let us be clear: the current state of the IVF offering across the UK is far below what would-be parents deserve. I will be honest with the Minister: none of the devolved nations, or England, is currently getting it right.
It was those first-hand experiences that brought me to this issue and prompted me to introduce the Bill. Since I was elected three years ago, I have campaigned extensively to “right”' the “wrongs” that I have experienced at first hand as an IVF patient. I passionately believe that many of the problems that currently affect patients seeking IVF can be addressed by an improvement in the transparency requirements to which clinics must adhere.
In my view, there are two areas in which inadequate transparency levels are most pressing. First, there is an unacceptable lack of transparency in respect of the number of NHS-funded cycles that IVF clinics are offering. We need to be able to hold the clinics to account for their failures to adhere to guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which clearly state that NHS England should offer three full cycles of IVF to all women under 40 if they have been trying unsuccessfully to have a child for more than two years. The reality is that across the UK fewer than half of all IVF cycles for under-35s were funded by the NHS, and in England it is even worse: just 36% of IVF cycles are funded by the NHS. The result is a patchwork of different IVF services across the country, with unacceptable regional disparities. Not only will compelling clinics to publish the extent to which they are abiding by NICE guidelines empower patients to make informed choices about paying for treatment, but we will be holding clinics to account over where they fall short. Because of these regional disparities, the vast  majority of clinically eligible patients ultimately face funding their own treatment. Such a high proportion is plainly and simply against NICE guidelines. Some couples are having to pay up to £15,000 for a single IVF cycle, and that cannot be right.
The second transparency issue that the Bill seeks to address relates to the controversial “add-on” treatments that IVF clinics market to their patients, often without sufficient information about their efficacy. Different clinics call these products by a wide variety of names. Some refer to them as “supplementary” treatments or “adjuvant” treatments, or, most ambiguously of all, simply “embryology treatments”. These add-ons often add thousands of pounds’ worth of extra “treatment” to the overall cost of IVF, and the science behind them is often murky, or at least unclear.
The mis-selling of IVF add-ons is an issue of particular importance to me. I know at first hand that for many would-be parents seeking IVF treatment, especially those on low incomes and those who have endured several rounds of IVF already, being offered these additional products can often mean making heart-wrenching decisions. When you feel that you would do anything just to increase your chances of successfully having a baby, perhaps even by just 1%, shelling out thousands of pounds for procedures including “endometrial scratching”, “preimplantation genetic testing” or perhaps an “intrauterine culture” seems a reasonable—perhaps even routine—step to take, but the reality is that none of those add-ons has a solid evidence base to support its effectiveness, no matter how scientific they sound. We know that they lack solid clinical evidence because of the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and its “traffic-light” system for rating add-ons.
Of course that rating system is useful to many thousands of IVF patients and I commend the HFEA for its work, especially its calls for clinics to be more open about the add-ons they provide, but I strongly believe that we need to do more, which is why the Bill’s second primary purpose is to mandate that clinics publish data on the number of add-on treatments that they sell. We cannot allow a situation in which desperate would-be parents are not properly informed about the efficacy of eye-wateringly expensive add-on treatments, and are exploited and seen as cash cows by clinics that just want to make money. As with the regional disparities issue that I mentioned earlier, by requiring the publication of data  on add-on services we can hold clinics to account far more easily, and use that data as a key tool to improve the way in which IVF services are offered across the country.
Put together, the transparency issues that plague our IVF services contribute to what is commonly known as the “postcode lottery” of IVF. Up and down the country, IVF clinics are offering vastly different levels of NHS-backed IVF, often in breach of NICE guidelines, and all with differing approaches to selling add-ons. The NHS’s new integrated care systems, introduced by the Government’s Health and Care Act 2022, were set up specifically to tackle inequalities in access and health outcomes, including IVF outcomes, but if the issues of transparency are not addressed, those inequalities will simply continue to persist. That is why I believe that the Bill is a vital step in ensuring that ICSs fulfil their obligations.
This Bill is a starting point. With the useful data that it will provide, we will have the tools to address the issues that I have raised today. In no way is it trying to fix all the problems that prospective IVF parents currently face. Indeed, I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have campaigned tirelessly on other important issues relating to fertility access. I pay particular tribute to one of my co-sponsors, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for her work on her own Private Member’s Bill requiring employers to provide paid fertility leave.
We have much more to do if we are to improve the way in which our country provides IVF, and improving our cultural attitudes to it, including attitudes in the workplace, is no exception. I believe that the Bill is an important starting point. From transparency will come accountability, and with accountability we can finally address the IVF postcode lottery once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex Davies-Jones, Nickie Aiken, Tonia Antoniazzi, Steve Brine, Stella Creasy, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Christine Jardine, Dame Diana Johnson, Justin Madders, Siobhain McDonagh, Charlotte Nichols and Caroline Nokes present the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 230).

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Retained EU Law: Where next?, HC 122, and the Government response, HC 885; and Oral evidence taken before the European Scrutiny Committee on 15 November 2022, on The UK’s new relationship with the EU, HC 120.]

(1) As regards all times after the end of 2023, the things listed in the left-hand column are to be known by the names in the right-hand column.

  

  Retained EU law
  Assimilated law


  Retained case law
  Assimilated case law


  Retained direct EU legislation
  Assimilated direct legislation


  Retained direct minor EU legislation
  Assimilated direct minor legislation


  Retained direct principal EU legislation
  Assimilated direct principal legislation


  Retained domestic case law
  Assimilated domestic case law


  Retained EU case law
  Assimilated EU case law


  Retained EU obligation
  Assimilated obligation

  

(2) Accordingly, as regards all times at or before the end of 2023, the things listed in the right-hand column continue to be known by the names in the left-hand column.
(3) Schedule (“Assimilated law”: consequential amendments) contains amendments consequential on subsection (1).
(4) A reference in an enactment to a thing in the left-hand column of the table in subsection (1) is to be read, as regards all times after the end of 2023, as a reference to the thing by its name in the right-hand column.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any title of an enactment (including any provision about how an enactment may be cited) or any reference to a title of an enactment.
(6) The provision that may be made by regulations under section 19 (power to make consequential provision) in consequence of subsection (1) of this section includes, in particular—
(a) provision adding entries to the table in subsection (1) for things which relate to the things for which there are entries in the table (and adding definitions for those things to subsection (7));
(b) provision amending an enactment in consequence of the name of a thing being changed by subsection (1) (including by virtue of regulations under section 19).
(7) In this section—
“retained case law”, “retained domestic case law” and “retained EU case law” have the meaning given by section 6(7) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as it has effect on the day on which this Act is passed);
“retained EU law”, “retained direct EU legislation”, “retained direct minor EU legislation”, “retained direct principal EU legislation” and “retained EU obligation” have the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (as it has effect on the day on which this Act is passed).”—(Ms Ghani.)
This new clause renames “retained EU law” and related bodies or types of law and makes related provision.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Conditions for bringing sections 3, 4 and 5 into force—
“(1) None of sections 3, 4 or 5 may be brought into force unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has, after consulting organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, that section on a draft of that report, laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out, with reasons, the Minister’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force, setting out in particular the effect of that section on:
(a) the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare;
(b) legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law;
(c) the operation of the Trade and Cooperation agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and UK exports of goods and services to the European Economic Area; and
(d) the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) In relation to section 4, that report must take into account any regulation made or likely to be made by a relevant national authority under section 8(1).
(4) The second condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid before Parliament, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The third condition is that, after the end of that period, both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section come into force.
(6) If both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section should not come into force unless it is amended in a way set out in that resolution, then the Minister may by regulation amend that section accordingly, and that section may not be brought into force until that amendment has been made.”
This new clause requires Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles. It also includes opportunity for Parliamentary approval and timeframes for laying reports before both Houses.
New clause 3—Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16—
“(1) The first condition is that the relevant national authority has consulted such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by its proposals, and any such other persons as it considers appropriate, on a draft of those regulations.
(2) The second condition is that the national authority has, after that consultation has concluded and after considering any representations made to it, laid a draft of the regulations before each House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly), together with a report setting out, with reasons, the authority’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of making those regulations, setting out in particular:
(a) a summary of the objectives and effect of those regulations as compared to the instrument that they will revoke, replace or modify;
(b) any difference as between that instrument and the proposed regulations in terms of protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, or animal welfare;
(c) any benefits which are expected to flow from the revocation or replacement of that instrument;
(d) the consultation undertaken as required by subsection (2);
(e) any representations received as a result of that consultation;
(f) the reason why the national authority considers that it is appropriate to make those regulations, having considered those representations;
(g) the reasons why the national authority considers that section 15(5) (overall reduction in burdens) does not preclude the making of the regulations, explaining what burdens are reduced or increased as a result of the making of the regulations;
(h) the compatibility of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument with obligations in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and the likely effect on UK exports of goods or services to the European Economic Area; and
(i) the likely effect of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) The third condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since those draft regulations or that report were laid as required by subsection (2) with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House or that body is adjourned for more than four days, and where they were laid before Parliament, paragraph 8(11)(a) of Schedule 3 shall apply in determining the commencement of that period.
(4) The fourth condition is that the national authority has considered any representations made during the period provided for by subsection (3) and, in particular, any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament (or, as the case may be of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) with regard to the proposals, and has published its reasons for accepting or rejecting any such representations, resolution, or report.”
This new clause requires the relevant national authorities to consult with key stakeholders on proposed regulations revoking or replacing REUL, and to show Parliament their assessment of the impact of the changes
New clause 5—Powers to revoke or replace: application to environmental law—
“(1) This section applies in respect of provision which may be made by a relevant national authority under section 15 where the provision is in respect of secondary retained EU law which is environmental law.
(2) No provision may be made unless the relevant national authority considers that the provision will contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection.
(3) The relevant national authority must—
(a) have regard to international environmental protection legislation and international best practice on environmental protection,
(b) comply with the requirements and objectives of the Aarhus, Bonn, Bern, Ramsar, OSPAR and Biodiversity Conventions, and
(c) comply with environmental principles and the policy statement on environmental principles.
(4) The relevant national authority must—
(a) seek advice from persons who are independent of it and have relevant expertise,
(b) seek advice from, as appropriate, the Office for Environmental Protection, Environmental Standards Scotland, a devolved environmental governance body or other person exercising similar functions, and
(c) publish a report setting out—
(i) how the provision will contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection, and
(ii) how the authority has taken into account the advice from the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(5) In this section—
“Aarhus Convention” means The UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus, 25 June 1998);
“Bern Convention” means the Council of Europe's Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979) [ratified / signed];
“Biodiversity Convention” means the UN Convention on Biodiversity (Rio, 1992);
“Bonn Convention” means The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979);
“devolved environmental governance body” has the same meaning as in section 47 of the Environment Act 2021;
“environmental law” has the same meaning as in section 46 of the Environment Act 2021, but without the exception set out in section 46(3) and (4) (devolved legislative provision);
“environmental protection” has the same meaning as in section 45 of the Environment Act 2021;
“environmental principles” and “policy statement on environmental principles” have the same meanings as in section 17 of the Environment Act 2021;
“Environmental Standards Scotland” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021;
“international environmental protection legislation” has the same meaning as in section 21 of the Environment Act 2021;
“Office for Environmental Protection” has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Environment Act 2021;
“OSPAR Convention” means The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (1992);
“RAMSAR Convention” means The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971).”
This new clause creates additional conditions to be satisfied before the powers set out in clause 15 can be exercised where the subject matter of their exercise concerns environmental law.
Amendment 33, page 1, line 2, leave out clause 1.
This amendment deletes the sunset clause.
Amendment 18, page 1, line 4, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment moves the sunset of legislation from 2023 to 2026.
Amendment 28, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 37, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
Amendment 38, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Senedd.
Amendment 19, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018 and
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.”
This amendment would exclude certain regulations which provide for workers’ protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 21, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 24, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain retained EU law which provides for consumer protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 36, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months before the date specified in subsection (1), publish a list of all legislation being revoked under this section (the “revocation list”) and lay a copy before Parliament.
(3B) With each update of the revocation list up to the date specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay an updated copy of the revocation list before Parliament.
(3C) Any legislation not included in the revocation list, as updated, on the date specified in subsection (1) is not revoked.
(3D) At any time before the date specified in subsection (1), the House of Commons may by resolution amend the revocation list by adding or removing instruments specified in the resolution, and the Secretary of State must accordingly lay the updated revocation list before Parliament.
(3E) At any time before the date specified in subsection (1), the House of Lords may by resolution propose amendment of the revocation list by adding or removing instruments specified in the resolution.
(3F) If the House of Commons does not pass a motion disagreeing with a resolution of the House of Lords under subsection (3E) within ten days of the date of that resolution, the Secretary of State must amend the revocation list in accordance with the resolution of the House of Lords and lay the updated version before Parliament.
(3G) If the Secretary of State does not amend the revocation list when required to do so by paragraphs (3D) or (3F) before the date specified in paragraph (1), the revocation list will be deemed to have been amended as specified in the resolution of the relevant House of Parliament, and the relevant legislation will be treated as though the change has been made.
(3H) Any legislation to which section (3C) applies is not to be considered as either retained EU law or assimilated law.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the Sunset Clause, and allow for Parliamentary oversight of this process so that it is the House of Commons which has the ultimate say on which legislation is affected.
Amendment 29, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment clarifies what provisions would be devolved and therefore under the competence of Scottish Ministers for decision, rather than a Secretary of State.
Amendment 39, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Welsh Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Welsh Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone.”
This amendment clarifies what provisions would be devolved and therefore under the competence of Welsh Ministers for decision, rather than a Secretary of State.
Government amendments 1, 3 and 6.
Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
“(d) the undesirability of disturbing settled understandings of the law, on the basis of which individuals and businesses may have made decisions of importance to them;
(e) the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability; and
(f) the principle that significant changes in the law should be made by Parliament (or, as the case may be, the relevant devolved legislature).”
This amendment adds further conditions for higher courts to regard when deciding to diverge from retained EU case law.
Government amendments 7 to 17 and 2.
Amendment 20, in clause 15, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018 and
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 22, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019)
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 25, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for consumer protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 34, page 18, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment ensures that the powers to revoke or replace would be subject to restrictions as laid out in NC3.
Amendment 23, page 18, line 13, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment will remove the restriction on the replacement of EU law that states it must not add to the regulatory burden.
Amendment 35, in clause 16, page 19, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment would ensure that the power to update would be subject to the restrictions laid out in NC3.
Amendment 30, in clause 20, page 20, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not include in regulations under this Act any provision which is within the devolved competence of any devolved authority as defined in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment adds protection for devolved competence, denying any Secretary of State the chance to revoke REUL within devolved competence.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Government new schedule 1—“Assimilated law”: consequential amendments.
Amendment 31, in schedule 3, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“Consent of Scottish Ministers
8A Before making regulations to which this Part of this Schedule applies, a Minister of the Crown must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment modifies the powers which are conferred on Ministers of the Crown in devolved areas so that they may only be exercised with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.

Nusrat Ghani: I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.
I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.
It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.

Justin Madders: I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the amendments that appear in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our amendments, even if they are all accepted, cannot completely cure this fundamentally defective Bill, but we will see where we go with that. Let me add my appreciation, as the Minister did, to those on the Committee for their efforts in scrutinising this Bill and to the Clerks for assisting us in doing that.
First, turning to amendment 18, I have yet to hear any rational justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023 for the jettisoning of all EU regulations. We are  told that it is an imperative that we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date and that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many it turns out to be—that are holding us back.
I understand the importance of having a target to work to, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational argument is put forward, especially, as I shall go on to explain, as it carries far greater risks than benefits. We were told by the Minister at the Committee stage that, in essence, the cliff edge is being used as some sort of management tool to ensure that civil servants remain focused and can deliver the work necessary to clear the statute books of all this legislation. What a sad state of affairs it is that the only way that the Government think they can get officials to function properly is to legislate for them to do so. Imagine if we got ourselves into a position where every time the Government wanted the civil service to work to a deadline we had to put it in a Bill. It is an explanation that is as threadbare as the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill.

Justin Madders: That is a very good point. If the Government cannot even tell us how many rules are covered by this Bill, how can we be confident that things will not be missed? The 2023 date is a deadline in search of a headline; it is not a serious proposition or the action of a responsible Government, and it should be rejected.
The cliff edge is even more absurd when we consider that the Government do not know what rules will be covered by this Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) in his place; when he was on the Front Bench, he told us, in answer to a written question:
“The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL.”
He told us in response to a written question on 21 October:
“we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard”.
As we know now, that 100 is probably more like 1,400, so we cannot accuse him of over-promising and under-delivering. He also told us:
“Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.”
It is 2023 now and, as of midday today, that dashboard had not been updated at all since this Bill was first presented, so it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative—it is actually not very helpful either. That is undoubtedly not a sound basis on which to be legislating.

Justin Madders: Yes, I think that Bill also gives employers the power to sack striking nurses, teachers and doctors. Those are not the actions of a Government who want to protect employment rights.
The amendment includes the 2006 TUPE regulations, which ensure that when one business buys another, there is reasonable certainty about which workers transfer to that new business, so that the purchaser knows which employees it is getting and, critically, workers know that they cannot be dismissed or have their terms and conditions slashed just because they are working for a new employer. Let us make it crystal clear that TUPE will stay. That would ensure protection and certainty for employees, but also certainty for employers. How on earth would someone thinking of buying a business in 2023 know whether to proceed with the purchase if they did not know whether they were obliged to take on the workforce with it? We have a stable, settled, well understood framework of law that helps businesses to operate. Why put that in jeopardy, particularly if, as is claimed, Ministers have no intention of removing it?
To make a general point on employment rights, they are not a burden. They are an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we will have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses; it is what good businesses do, and what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they are allowed to operate on a level playing field.
My constituents will be considerably poorer over the next few years as a result of the economic decisions made by this Government. I do not want them to be poorer in terms of rights, as well. Employment rights ensure that people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income. They help to encourage a committed workforce and the retention of skilled workers. They are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they also have social and economic value and are an essential component of a healthy, stable and progressive country.
We need a country where people have the security of knowing that if they do a good job and their employer runs its business well, they will be rewarded properly and be able to stay in work. What we have instead is a culture of disposable commodities and fire and rehire, where loyalty counts for nothing. It is time to draw a  line in the sand and say, “No further.” Let us not allow this Bill to open up another line of attack on working people. Let us close it off now once and for all and support amendment 19.
Our amendment 26 also touches on the subject of workers’ rights and what the ripping up of 50 years of case law overnight will mean. As Michael Ford KC said:
“Workers and employers will be back at square one. The whole lengthy and expensive process of appeals will have to be repeated.”
He even said that lawyers would be dismayed at the prospect of having to do that, and that is a view replicated across just about the entire legal profession. As a lawyer myself, I know how difficult it must be for the legal profession to actively argue against anything that might help generate more fees for them, but they do so because they know that the law hates uncertainty and business hates uncertainty.
Nobody wants to end up in lengthy and costly court battles because the settled law of half a century has disappeared in a puff of smoke. Be in no doubt that that will deter investment, because uncertainty deters investment, but it will also create injustices, because it will be those with the deepest pockets who will be able to litigate the longest. If a worker’s circumstances just happen to fall into one of those areas where this artificial vacuum has been created, even if they can afford to fight their case, they could be waiting years for an answer to a question that, until 31 December 2023, everyone knew the answer to.
Amendment 26 attempts to restore some balance and certainty to the law. It does not impinge on the courts’ ability to depart from existing EU law, but it recognises that legal certainty, clarity and predictability are desirable in a healthy and functioning democracy, and that it is Parliament that should determine significant changes to the law.
Amendment 24 relates to a smorgasbord of consumer rights and protections that are derived from the EU, such as the right to compensation when flights are cancelled or delayed or boarding is denied, and giving priority to passengers who have a disability. It also includes laws for similar provisions when a train is delayed or cancelled in the form of the Delay Repay system. I am sure that the Delay Repay websites for Avanti and quite a few other rail operators are getting more visits than the retained EU law dashboard website. There is a problem with the rail system at the moment, but we do not want to see passengers denuded of the right to claim compensation when there are delays.
Other regulations under the amendment include those preventing shops from imposing surcharges that go beyond the coverage of costs; protecting consumers from unsafe electrical equipment by setting standards for the testing of products and the voltages of appliances; and setting minimum safety standards on children’s toys. There are many more, and I will not list every regulation, because I do not claim that the list is authoritative or comprehensive, but it is a list of laws that we believe should be kept alongside the similar amendments on workers’ rights, and I hope we can protect those, too.
Finally, I will speak briefly about how we are standing up for our environmental protections. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke at length in Committee about this Government’s dire approach to environmental laws, and as I have been speaking for some time and other Members want to speak, I will not repeat everything that he said. I certainly do not have the intimate knowledge that he does  of white-clawed crayfish, but I will summarise why amendments 21 and 22 and new clause 5 are important for protecting environmental standards.
There is deep concern among many in the environmental movement that in this Government’s deregulatory war, our natural environment, among other areas, could become a casualty. There is a worry that some hold the view that environmental protections are red tape that hold back growth. Our amendments and new clause would provide safeguards against dangerous deregulation that could undermine national and international commitments to environmental protection and improvement.
Amendments 21 and 22 list 19 regulations that would be placed beyond the scope of the sunset in clause 1 and the powers of restatement in clause 15. They cover a vast range of important policy areas about which the public feel passionately, including animal welfare, the protection of wildlife, water quality, the treatment and discharge of sewage, the protection of human health from the impacts of air pollution, the safe use of chemicals and pesticides, the use of animals in scientific testing and the prevention of the spread of animal diseases, such as bird flu. While these regulations are some of the most prominent, they represent just a handful of the 1,100-plus environmental regulations that are key to safeguarding our natural environment. Weakening any of them could cause a vast amount of suffering for our communities, and we want to see that prevented.
We have also tabled new clause 5, which would protect our environmental protections from the sweeping powers that the Bill gives Ministers. It would limit the changes that can be made to environmental protections under clause 15 powers. It outlines a number of conditions that would have to be met for changes to be made to the existing set of laws, including that any change must be considered by a relevant national authority to contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection, which contrasts with the Bill, which at the moment states that any restatement must not increase the regulatory burden. Perhaps we should listen to experts who say that they are concerned about what the Bill could mean for the environment, or the 21 different environmental groups that have signed a joint letter expressing their concern about the impact of this Bill. Even Chester Zoo in my constituency has written in to express its concerns.
Zoos, business leaders, trade unions, lawyers, environmental groups and even former Conservative MEPs have raised the alarm about the impact of this Bill, because it is a leap into the dark, a kamikaze approach to Government and a power grab. If Government Members support this Bill, they will bear the responsibility for its consequences for many years to come.

Bill Cash: Having endured the last 40 minutes, I am bound to say, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, that although I will be relatively brief there are important matters that need to be discussed. I will raise them and give the House the opportunity to reflect on what I have to say.
This Bill was passed by this House without amendment. There were no amendments on Second Reading or in the Public Bill Committee. I have been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, and I have been on this Committee since 1985. I draw the attention of the House to the European Scrutiny Committee report tagged to this debate, published on 21 July last year. As the Minister said, EU retained law was never intended to remain part of our domestic statute book. I am deeply grateful to the Government for today’s round robin letter to all Members and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his work on the genesis of this Bill.
We left the European Union with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 guaranteeing UK sovereignty and democracy, and therefore UK democracy itself. It was the culmination of a process that began with my sovereignty amendment to the Single European Act in 1986, which, at that time, I was not even allowed to debate. In turn, that was followed by the Maastricht treaty and a whole series of treaties, enactments and debates on the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties.
Incidentally, on the question of maternity pay—the only interesting thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—the UK actually has 52 weeks of maternity pay, while the EU has merely eight. On holiday pay, we have six weeks; the EU has four.
The views of the British people, as expressed ultimately in the 2016 referendum, repudiated the idea of our remaining in the EU by democratic vote, and the general election that endorsed that decision, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister, gave the present Conservative Government a large majority. The democracy that we enjoy is based on our unique and universally envied constitutional arrangements, whereby laws are passed in this House by a simple majority of MPs representing individual constituencies, who derive their authority exclusively from those who voted them into the House of Commons.

Bill Cash: No. In a nutshell, every single law that goes to the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate law-making body, does so by a majority vote of the 27 member stated behind closed doors, without even so much as a transcript and in total secrecy. Indeed, I had an exchange with the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham on this matter when he was still in this House in 2017. He made it abundantly clear in his response to an intervention that the real legislative power of the Council of Ministers was exercised in private, going on to say,
“I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 215.]
which is fundamentally different from the way in which we have legislated since we left the EU and in this actual  debate today. By contrast, we are conducting business today, and taking democratic decisions, by a majority of this House, which is proof in itself that it works.
In practice, in the context of the sunset arrangements in this Bill, clauses 12 to 16 provide delegated powers to restate, revoke and/or replace and update certain retained EU laws, which are secondary retained EU law and a new category of “secondary assimilated law”. Many of these powers are subject to the negative procedure, but the affirmative procedure is required where primary legislation is being amended or substantive policy change implemented. Some primary legislation is in the Bill. Where the negative procedure applies, the scrutiny system is similar to the work done by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and it will be for the House to decide how that evolves in line with the democratic decision taken by this House today.
When the original proposals for the first withdrawal agreement Act were brought into effect, at my suggestion—I introduced a Bill on the subject—all EU law was then deemed to be UK law. But then remainers got to work and came up with the concept of retained EU law, which asserted the supremacy of the principles of EU law and decisions by the European Court. We may have left the EU, but a massive ball and chain was embedded in that Act preventing us from making our own sovereign laws on our own terms. I add, by way of parenthesis, that the Prime Minister responsible for that Act resigned—thanks to the Spartans.
Those laws had been made under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true to say that since that date, not one single European law was ever repudiated by this House, because the provisions of that 1972 Act prevented it. We were therefore subjugated to the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice by our own irresponsible, voluntary abdication of the inherent and democratic procedures that evolved in this House over the best part of 400 years.
Our entry into the EU in 1972 was therefore a blind step into the void of an undemocratic and unaccountable system of government. These thousands of laws lack inherent democratic legitimacy, and must therefore be removed from and/or replaced on our statute book. The Bill also allows us to move back to the certainty implicit in the UK common-law way of doing things, as compared with the purposive interpretation of law by our judges, as laid down by the principles of EU law. Nobody can dispute that.

Hilary Benn: The Bill certainly has not improved with age; on the contrary, all of its flaws have become more exposed as the chorus of criticism on it has become louder and louder. We have heard Ministers blame misrepresentation a lot this afternoon. I think that they need to realise that they have brought this mess entirely on themselves. I wonder whether now, on reflection, they regret embarking on a process that has made opponents of so many people they did not need to anger. This morning, I listened to the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, who was absolutely scathing about the Bill. The Government have brought that upon themselves. Whatever Ministers think it is that they are doing, this is very bad politics—not that it is for me to advise them.
The fundamental problem, as we have heard, is that the Government still do not seem to know what it is  that they want to do. Here we are, six-and-a-half years after the referendum, and they cannot tell us precisely what they want to scrap, what they want to amend and what they want to save. They cannot tell us. For my sins, I read the Hansard of the Committee, and found that, despite being asked that question many times, the Minister could not or would not provide an answer. As yet, I describe this as a process without a purpose. In the meantime, as we have also heard, Ministers have created huge uncertainty for business.
It is extraordinary, and that is why I am supporting the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). They seek to give substance to what the Government claim, which is that they have no intention of sweeping away lots of environmental and consumer protection and workers’ rights laws; they just refuse to be specific about the ones they are going to keep. The amendments would make it clear beyond doubt which pieces of EU retained law will not be affected by sunsetting.
I am also supporting the cross-party amendment—amendment 36—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) because, whatever differences of view there may be in the House about other aspects of the Bill, surely nobody would argue that it is acceptable to repeal legislation by accident. Nobody can argue for that—that a piece of retained EU law should suddenly disappear from the statute book in just over 11 months because no one noticed its existence.
The Minister argued in Committee:
“Allowing outdated retained EU laws to languish on our statute book where they do not work in the best interests of the UK”—
debate—
“is irresponsible.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 121.]
I would argue that it is irresponsible to propose this legislation, which could cause laws to disappear simply by neglect, given that Ministers cannot even produce a list of the so-called outdated laws—I simply do not understand this idea that all these bits of legislation are dragging the nation down—let alone a full and complete list of all the pieces of retained EU law that come within scope of this Bill. Because of that, the amendment my hon. Friend will be moving is necessary.
The Government have admitted that they do not have such a list. They have been asked repeatedly and the best answer they could come up with was that the
“dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue”
of retained EU law. It might have been better to say, “We don’t yet know what it is we’re talking about.” I think that is a fair summary of the Bill and that is why the amendment is needed. It will provide a fall-back and a fail-safe and it gives the House control—there has been much debate about that today—about what stays and what goes. I hope Members will support it.
On the sunset date, everybody knows that it is completely unrealistic—everybody knows. In the Second Reading debate, a former holder of the job I had the privilege to do, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers)—while supporting the Bill, said that there was a bit of a problem with the deadline here, because of what the Government were asking civil servants and Ministers to do. Nobody believes it is going to happen, which is why I argued last time that lots of this stuff will just be saved, using the powers that are within the Bill. We should help the Government by voting for amendment 18 to move the sunset date from this December to 2026.
Above all, this is a terrible diversion of resources and effort. There are so many things in this country at the moment that are not working. I am not going to go through the list, but we all know that because it is the experience of our constituents. Why do the Government not focus on those things, rather than on pieces of legislation that are working—because they protect our environmental standards, consumer rights and working conditions? The fact that they originated, in many respects, from the European Union really does not matter one way or another. They are laws that we approve of, we like and we want to keep and that is why so many people are so unhappy about this Bill: it threatens and it does not look as though the Government know what they are doing.

David Davis: I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right. The reason why I did not like the European Union was precisely what my right hon. Friend has just described.  We had things almost de facto imposed on us. We went down an SI-type route to do things that I thought were important enough to justify discussion on the Floor of the House. The depletion of debate on the Floor of the House, mostly in the years before he came into the House, was one reason I was a Brexiteer.
We have approached this issue in a different way in other respects. Let us imagine that we are talking about 4,000 pieces of law, regulations or whatever. In truth, probably 90% of that may be clunky and may not work very well, but there is one thing in the Bill that I approve of, which is dealing with the superiority of European law—taking those priorities out of it. That is sensible. Once we have dealt with that, things will broadly work and will not justify a rush at this exercise. Let me explain very briefly what I think the consequences of that will be. I said that it is not democratic, but it will also be inefficient and possibly incompetent. I give the House, as a demonstration of this, what we did on 3 March 2020. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that was the day that we gave the Government all sorts of powers under the emergency Coronavirus Act 2020. If we look, we can see how many errors were made in governing the country over the next six months, until we corrected that Act. If we do not bring a Minister to that Dispatch Box to justify what they are doing, the quality of the decision goes down, and that is dangerous when we are talking about measures as important as these.
The right approach is the one that we have actually taken in some areas. For example, we are rewriting the General Data Protection Regulation under a digital Bill. We are rewriting Solvency II and other financial measures under primary legislation, and the same is true for some procurement work. We should be doing similar things with some other software elements and biomedical rules. That is the way to do it: pick off the 10% or the 5% that really matter—that make 100% of the difference—and do that properly, on the Floor of the House, and not by remote control on a ministerial diktat in an SI Committee upstairs.

Bambos Charalambous: I rise to speak in support of amendments 18, 19, 21, 24 and 36. What is clear from the Government is that this Bill is ideologically driven, lacks common sense, avoids parliamentary scrutiny and puts rights and protections that we have had for many years at risk of being revoked and deleted. In short, thisthe Bill plays Russian roulette with our rights and protections, and the Government cannot even tell us how many or give us an exhaustive list of which ones. When the Government unite groups ranging from the RSPB to the Law Society in opposition to the Bill, they should take note. This Bill creates uncertainty and is careering at great speed towards the edge of a cliff on 31 December 2023.
If the Government want to ensure that workers’ rights and environmental protections are not lost, they will have no problem in accepting amendments 19 and 21, which would exclude those rights and protections from the 31 December sunset clause and stop them from falling off a cliff edge. The Government have adopted 31 December as the date for the sunset clause, but they have not told us why. If they cannot even provide a definitive list of all the EU retained law that will be revoked in time for that date, surely that suggests we need more time to get the list ready.
Considering the wide range and extent of the rights and protections that we know about, surely having a longer sunset clause will help the Government to give  greater certainty, which we were told was one of the reasons for thisthe Bill. The Government should therefore have no problem at all in accepting amendment 18, which extends the sunset clause to 2026. It would also allow the Government greater opportunity to bring Bills for primary legislation, allowing greater scrutiny by thisthe House in replacing the retained law that they propose to delete.
The Minister has continually failed to answer the question of exactly how many retained EU laws will be revoked under the sunset clause, and I do not understand why that is a problem. Surely all the retained EU law is there before us, and we should be able to find out exactly which regulations need to be retained and which will be deleted? There is no excuse. No new EU law has come about since we left the European Union, so that retained law should be easy to find. I cannot understand why we do not know which laws will be revoked under this Bill.
Amendment 36 requires the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation that is to be revoked under the sunset clause. Parliament should not be asked to vote on the revocation of these laws when we are not aware of which laws or how many there are. We need to be told, because that is one of the very points of having this Bill before us.
On the Henry VIII powers that the Bill gives to Ministers, which are designed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, what are the Government afraid of? We should have parliamentary sovereignty; we should be the ones to decide which laws we want to retain and to revoke. Primary legislation should be brought for the laws that are revoked. There is no excuse for the clause to be there. Do the Government deny that there is a need for primary legislation? There will be laws revoked for which there will need to be legislation. Which ones are they and why can they not be put into a Bill and brought before this House? That would be give the House greater scrutiny and allow us to ensure that we do not accidentally lose certain laws.
The Bill is a bonfire of our rights and protections. The haste with which it is being brought through Parliament and the 2023 sunset clause put us in serious danger of things being accidentally revoked and our rights and protections being lost. The amendments proposed make a bad Bill better, and the Government would be wise to support them. If the Government press ahead with the Bill unamended, they will have to explain to the House when any rights and protections are lost after 31 December, and they cannot then say that they were not warned.

Nusrat Ghani: The dashboard will always be updated as new EU law is being discovered. The fact that it has to be discovered and that we need to go and identify it tells us that there is a problem. We have verified a substantial amount. It could be up to 4,000 laws, but this gives each Department time to assess, amend, assimilate or revoke.
On new clause 1, the sunset is a fundamental aspect of the Bill. The sunset date of 31 December 2023 was chosen to incentivise and accelerate a programme of reform that is well under way. Although 2023 may be an ambitious deadline, it has been years since we voted in favour of leaving the EU, as colleagues across the House have noted, so it is absolutely right for our constituents to expect us to be able to remove outdated laws in that time. There is also an extension, up to 2026, if Departments need more time to consult and take decisions on the EU laws that they wish to amend or repeal. That has always been in the Bill. To deliver those reforms, each Department will take its own view on how to prioritise and timetable pieces of REUL to ensure delivery before the sunset date. The Government will ensure that that work is appropriately resourced.
The criticism about the Bill enshrining a race to the bottom is just incorrect. We have sought to ensure that the powers to revoke or replace cannot be used to add to the overall regulatory burden for any particular subject area, but they do not preclude the introduction of higher standards. That will help to ensure that the UK takes a more modern, agile and proportionate approach to making regulations, and establishes a more nimble, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach to go further and faster and in seizing the opportunities of Brexit.
On the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, the Government will ensure the continued functioning of the intellectual property framework, given its importance both in underpinning investment and in supporting international trade. We recognise the importance attached to stability and certainty in the area of intellectual property. Those will be prominent considerations for the Government when making decisions on REUL in this area.
Suggestions that we have delivered, or will deliver, a bonfire of workers’ rights are absolutely inaccurate. As I mentioned earlier, we are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards. We have the best workers’ rights record in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides stronger protections for workers than those required by EU law. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for setting out that Parliament has been legislating to protect workers’ rights for hundreds of years.

Nusrat Ghani: I find this extraordinary. The devolved authorities have the right to make decisions on devolved laws. Why would that not be embraced, instead of being rejected?
I must comment on the Bar Council’s evidence. Barrister Tom Sharpe KC noted that the Bar Council
“is our trade union, and it does not speak on my behalf on this political matter…obviously”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 24, Q43.]
An issue about deregulation was raised. It is not enshrined in any of the clauses, but the Bill says that overall burdens must be reduced.

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 297.
Question accordingly negatived.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 25 October 2022).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Amendment proposed: 28, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”—(Alyn Smith.)
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

That the draft Health and Social Care Information Centre (Transfer of Functions, Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 15 December 2022, be approved.

That the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 12 December 2022, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Luke Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for that clear point, on which I completely agree. Connecting areas such as Cribbs Causeway with Yate is also hugely beneficial for the many people in Yate and the surrounding area who work in the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency and in the wider South Gloucestershire area. He is right to champion that and I completely support him in  that quest.
The total proposed funding commitment for this project so far from the West of England Combined Authority is almost £3.9 million, which is hugely welcome. I understand that that is planned to be submitted to the combined authority committee and the joint committee on 27 January as part of the MetroWest phase 2 funding request. As we await the outcome of that, I thank all the local authority leaders across the west of England who have supported the new service in principle, and the West of England Metro Mayor Dan Norris for his support and helping us get to this stage in Yate.
I ask the Minister: what efforts are being made centrally to drive recruitment in the rail industry? Staffing shortages are beginning to hold up essential improvements to services such as the Yate half-hourly train service. My understanding is that the extra services have now also been submitted as part of GWR’s annual business plan to the DfT; I would be grateful for any update that he can provide on the process for signing that off at his end.
It is important that the rail industry should not be cutting costs at the expense of already approved timetable improvements in the south-west—many hon. Members feel strongly about that—so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline his thoughts on that. Will he meet me, Network Rail and GWR to discuss the support that the DfT can offer to ensure that the proposed half-hourly services can go ahead in May, which would mean that the Government could secure that vital return on their investment in the Bristol East junction?
Getting half-hourly service patterns in place is critical to enabling the opening of Charfield railway station, which is a separate project but is equally important for unlocking some of the roads and for connecting towns across South Gloucestershire with the wider region. It was opened in 1844 and was a vital hub prior to its closure in 1965. Plans are advanced to rebuild and reopen a new Charfield station in the heart of the village and there was a 12-week consultation that closed last year. It will be a hugely important development if it goes ahead; the application is currently with the local council. The importance of getting the Yate services must not be understated in terms of the wider impact on the surrounding railway network and helping us reduce congestion.
Yate is continuing to grow, but the current train services are too infrequent, with too few carriages. Delivering on the pledge to introduce half-hourly train services between Yate and Bristol and Gloucester is vital. It will improve access to local public transport, take cars off the road, cut journey times, and reduce emissions. The demand is there, and we have the local support; I hope the Minister will assure residents in south Gloucestershire that these plans are firmly back on track.